I thought we went to the moon....until I viewed these videos

originally posted by: jimmyx
a reply to: ngchunter

you bringing up the Orion EFT-1 is the only "non-sequitur" in relationship to what I was talking about, in regards to the low-earth orbital distance of the shuttle and the ISS. so, maybe you should use a little logic before accusing me of not doing so.

someone mentioned that the 6 American flags planted in the surface of the moon would still be noticeable. these 2 sites would seem to contradict that statement...

low resistance to sunlight on nylon
textilelearner.blogspot.com...

and the actual nylon material (common store bought flags)
www.todayifoundout.com...

did you even read your own links the second link clearly states that the flags are still on the moon and can been seen.

originally posted by: smurfy
Radiation is everywhere, it's the degree of exposure, and the amount of that's the most important aspect. An aircraft passenger is exposed, but not long enough to harm them, even on a trip around the globe, cabin crew are more vulnerable though through long-term exposure. Apollo was through the belts in a very short time. Orion is to be used for long duration missions, Asteroids and Mars, it needs to be radiation proof to a high degree and thats what the guy in the video is trying to tell everybody, how anyone can twist that into a 'No Moon' confession is beyond me. Apollo probably was with a certain amount of gung-ho, even the shuttles were risky enough. Nowadays the approach is more measured and leaner, with goals much longer into the future. As for the No Mooners, they are being misled, dishonestly in some quarters, daftly in others...like the second video, which is either way.

Of course, in no way are Mooners misled at all.

No chance of that.....

originally posted by: eManym
The Apollo astronauts only experienced about 13 rads total of radiation from the Van Allen Belts during each trip. They were moving fast through the belts only spending 15 minutes during each traversal. The space craft absorbed most of the radiation during transit. 300 rads is a lethal dose and the astronauts were well under that.

The flag appearing to blow in the wind was caused by the astronaut turning the flag with his hand. In every video of the flag waving, an astronaut has his hand on the flag.

As for viewing the earth through a porthole, so what. Doesn't mean any hoax.

Face it, the USA landed on and traversed the Moons surface. I tire of people posting videos trying to debunk the landings with an argument that hasn't been thoroughly researched. Just trying to get views, I suppose.

Face this, you have as good a chance as proving the Bible is the Word of God as you do proving the moon landings, in ANY fashion.

originally posted by: bobbypurify
a reply to: ngchunter

I recreated James' signature in one fell swoop. You then claimed I was using this as "forgery" when I was just making an example. Then, you report me for merely questioning the authenticity of the signature.

The "James" is obviously different. Anyone can see that. You're resorting to some profound tactics of disolving our discourse. I'll stop conversing with you from this point forward.

They get very upset when anyone questions their religion.

originally posted by: SpongeBeard
a reply to: PlanetXisHERE

Lol. I haven't heard about the van allen radiation belts posing a danger since van allen himself debunked that.

Always interesting when someone debunks themselves entirely on such a matter, years later with tons of pressure.

Not to mention 40+ years of not once replication of ANYTHING remotely as hard as then, because tech is BETTER LOL.

originally posted by: ParasuvO
Face this, you have as good a chance as proving the Bible is the Word of God as you do proving the moon landings, in ANY fashion.

There's no need to prove anything regarding the Moon landings. The burden of proof is on those who claim they didn't happen, and their "proof" gets blasted to bits every time.

The documented and more recent evidence of the Apollo landings is so comprehensive, it's easier to prove than whether Julius Caesar existed or not.

originally posted by: bobbypurify
a reply to: ngchunter



Combine that with the silly photos and video of astronauts playing around on the moon like it's a bounce room at a toddler's bday party, like anyone would dare do that on an outerspace mission, knowing that any malfuction to the suit would kill them is absurd. Here, look at this silly clip:

www.youtube.com...

True of todays weak, uninspired people of today. But not so much of the people 50+ years ago.
Look at us today. We strap ourself in, pad every corner, analysis every action and are so worried that we might bump our arm. We protect and pad and sanitize every thing we touch.
50 years ago that was not the case. People would design, build and test new planes in a matter of months. Build it today. Climb in tommorow and then anyalzie the wreakage the next day to see what went wrong. Then next week start it all over again.
Those guys bounching around on the moon were not thinking safty first, they were thinking “WOW we are on the moon and this is great!” These where military guy and the military has also changed overer the last 50 years. They didn’t have hours of safty breifings before each mission, they had breifings on getting the mission done.

I was going to write more on this but someone else has already sadi it:
eas-astroblog.blogspot.gr...

a reply to: dismanrc

I would add to that comment that the post to which you're responding displays a lack of in-depth knowledge about the source material.

It appears to be based on a few isolated moments of levity.

The vast majority of the hours and hours and hours of live TV footage of Apollo EVAs, and the photographs that were taken, show astronauts at work installing scientific equipment that relayed data to Earth, or collecting samples that scientists the world over accept as lunar in origin.

Basing arationale for concluding it was faked on a tiny fragment of something instead of the bigger, longer, uncut picture says you are trying to exclude things that don't match up with your preconceptions.

originally posted by: TechniXcality
a reply to: PlanetXisHERE

I have good news, we still went to the moon even upon your viewing of the videos.

okay, but exactly how many of us went is what I want to know? Did the unborn go? Technically speaking I mean.

originally posted by: yuppa
Heres something to consider. the ORION would not be inside the VAn allen belts long enough to kill anyone same as it was with apollo. 3200 miles is how far they extend out. the rad levels drop really signifigantly from the inner belt though.

OH NOES MOON HOAX AWWRRR MUH GUUDNESSS!!

Orion was inside the intense inner Van Allen belt longer than Apollo. The dose of radiation expected for Orion was greater than Apollo. Review my first post on page 1 of this thread.

originally posted by: bobbypurify
a reply to: Greathouse I suppose it could be his signature but I won't blindly believe some guy who has an entire website used to debunk hoax theory.

But you will believe guys who are rabidly and irrationally anti-Apollo and continue to defend them even after they are soundly debunked. You haven't brought anything to any of these threads that hasn't been blown out of the water by One Big Monkey and others but instead of debating the issues you frequently resort to ad homs like "good little patriots." The science relating to how they got through the Van Allen belts has been presented here but instead of trying to debate that you're going off on a ridiculous tangent accusing someone of forging Van Allen's name.

a reply to: DelMarvel

I shouldn't even respond to this hypocritical post, but what the heck? It's a good morning and the coffee is tasty

I've debated just fine, I've even called out people from the hoax side who have been erroneous. I don't care, if you're wrong, you're just that.

Here's some science for you to consider: nobody outside of Apollo has even stepped into the ERBs other than the occasional swipe through the SAA. I've shown, how your side, has changed their arguments throughout this heated debate. Now, why has this changed so much? Shouldn't this have been settled science when the astros went in the first place?

We aren't meant to be in outer space. We aren't meant to be outside in space suits on the bright face of the moon. We certainly wouldn't be hopping around like jackasses when the slightest malfunction means blood-boiling death. I don't care about the "science" you all believe because it has an official label next to it. I think most of your side is either protecting or just flat out ignorant. As most people who deal in absolutes are. For you to come to a conclusion, with no empirical evidence nor replication by independant factions is hysterically stupid. There, I said it. Enjoy your day!

originally posted by: bobbypurify

We aren't meant to be in outer space. We aren't meant to be outside in space suits on the bright face of the moon. We certainly wouldn't be hopping around like jackasses when the slightest malfunction means blood-boiling death. I don't care about the "science" you all believe because it has an official label next to it. I think most of your side is either protecting or just flat out ignorant. As most people who deal in absolutes are. For you to come to a conclusion, with no empirical evidence nor replication by independant factions is hysterically stupid.

Do you actually read what you post?

Can you see how many absolutes you posted there with no empirical evidence?

Show us some empirical proof that Apollo is impossible.

a reply to: onebigmonkey

Haha, like what?

Nobody outside of Apollo has traversed the ERBs? Check

They jumped around like jackasses? Check

The official arguments for how Apollo navigated/survived ERBs has changed throughout time? Check

Nobody else has been to the moon in nearly 50 years? Check

Now, do you read what I post? You need to prove to me that it's possible. If I said I swam to the island across the bay; the burden of proof would not fall on you to prove how it's impossible. That's stupid and you know it. The burden would be for me to show you that I could do it.

Your side is allowed to twist logic and argue in fallacy all day long and fourteen stars appear above your posts in mere seconds. Makes me feel bad for modern society. Critical thought is dead. Trust authority. Believe it because it's stamped science!

I'll tell you what, OBM. When it's announced that Apollo is a hoax because the burden of carrying the lie doesn't hold up against time; I'll drop by here and say "hi". Protecting this lie will be something you take with you. It will be your legacy. Think about that!

originally posted by: bobbypurify
a reply to: onebigmonkey

They jumped around like jackasses? Check

Watch the original footage, in its entirety. No, they didn't just "jump around like jackasses."

The official arguments for how Apollo navigated/survived ERBs has changed throughout time?

No, it hasn't. It has had to address changing arguments for why they couldn't have traveled through them, so new points have been made.

a reply to: onebigmonkey

They did not film Earth in LEO, it is not possible to film the entire Earth when in LEO. The Apollo crew were actually that far away, and the Earth in shot shows weather patterns that were an exact match for the weather satellite photos taken later that day. The pictures in the broadcast were viewed by the Press at Houston and appeared in the press the next day.

Bruh! Nobody has debunked the video in question, it can't be debunked because it's real and it's filmed in NEO when the crew was supposed to be half way to the moon. If you can debunk it, please, enlighten me!

originally posted by: Helious
Bruh! Nobody has debunked the video in question, it can't be debunked because it's real and it's filmed in NEO when the crew was supposed to be half way to the moon. If you can debunk it, please, enlighten me!

Debunked.
apollo-history-and-hoax.com...

a reply to: Helious

Fine, have it your way.

The screenshot that you can see in that youtube video features Hurricane Bernice.

Hurricane Bernice only featured in the form you see there on one date: the date of the broadcast Apollo made.

That broadcast was shown to journalists at Houston, featured on the evening news and made it into the next day's front pages. I own one of the original press images used on those front pages.

The terminator you can see in the footage is exactly where it should be in the image, and the meteorological data from two separate weather satellites confirm that it shows the same thing.

The satellite images that cover the entire image would not be completed for several hours after the transmission, were not in colour, and would have had to be assembled and composited into a single colour image using technology they didn't have.

Th continuous footage of Earth shows noticable movement of Earth entirely consistent with the amount of time for which it is shown.

Read all about it here:

onebigmonkey.comoj.com...

Feel free to come up with an explanation that doesn't involve imaginary technology, men in black, sooper-seekrit goobermint projeks.

originally posted by: Helious


Bruh! Nobody has debunked the video in question, it can't be debunked because it's real and it's filmed in NEO when the crew was supposed to be half way to the moon. If you can debunk it, please, enlighten me!

Okay. There is this video:


Here's a link to an old post about weather patterns:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

A link to another old post about weather patterns:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

This video showing the ENTIRE Earth in the command module window with NOT "stencil cut-out" in the window (Starting at about the 5:55 mark and again at the 7:15 mark). This is the part of the Apollo 11 video that the people who are pushing the "the small Earth was just an illusion" idea failed to show us, probably because it proves they are making it all up (probably just to sell videos to hoax believers):


There have been many, many other threads and posts over the years that have debunked that particular "the Earth looked small only because it was a cut-out in the window" video.

a reply to: ParasuvO

Four troll posts in a row.

Anything to contribute to the thread?